Compelling Interest: Examining the Evidence on Racial Dynamics in Colleges and Universities 9780804764537

Citation preview

COMPELLING

INTEREST

Compelling Interest THE

EXAMINING

ON

IN

RACIAL

EVIDENCE

DYNAMICS

COLLEGES

AND

UNIVERSITIES

Edited by Mitchell J. Chang, Daria Witt, James Jones, and Kenji Hakuta

STANFORD

An imprint

EDUCATION

cif Stmiford University Press

Stanford University Press Stanford, California

© 2003 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Compelling interest : examining the evidence on racial dynamics in colleges and universities I edited by Mitchell). Chang ... [et al.]. p. em. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN o-8047-4034-8 (cloth: alk. paper)ISBN o-8047-4035-6 (pbk. : alk. paper) I. Discrimination in higher education-United States. 2. Educational equalization-United States. 3. Affirmative action programs-United States. I. Chang, Mitchell). LC2I2.42 .c66 2003 J78.I'9829-dc2I 2002I5I608 Original Printing 2003 Last figure below indicates year of this printing: 12 II IO 09 o8 07 o6 05 04 03 Designed by James P. Brommer Typeset in 10.5/r4 Bembo

CONTENTS

List of Tables vn List of Figures rx Contributors xi Priface xm ONE I I N T R 0 D U C T I 0 N

Daria Witt, Mitchell]. Chang, and Kenji Hakuta

TWO

I

JU

ST I C E , E Q UA L I T Y 0 F E D U C AT I 0 N A L

OPPORTUNITY, AND

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

IN HIGHER EDUCATION

22

William Trent, Dawn Owens-Nicholson, Timothy K. Eatman, Marya Burke, Jamie Daugherty, and Kathy Norman

THREE

I STANDARDIZED TESTING AND EQUAL ACCESS: A TUTORIAL

49

Linda E Wightman

FOUR I

S0 C I AL PSYC H 0 L0 GI C A L EVI D EN C E 0 N AND RACISM

RACE

97

Shana Levin

FIVE

I THE EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS OF DIVERSITY: EVIDENCE FROM MULTIPLE SECTORS

Jeffrey E Milem

126

VI

CONTENTS

SIX I

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PRACTICES IN A BROADER CONTEXT

I 70

Mitchell]. Chang, Daria Witt, and Kenji Hakuta APPENDIX A

I

H I S T 0 R I C A L S U M M A R Y 0 F A F F I R M AT I V E ACTION

185

Daria Witt and Clara Shin APPENDIX B I

D EFI N I T I 0 N S

Notes

207

Riferences Index

235

213

2 0

3

TABLES

2.1

Prekindergarten participation rates of three- to four-year-olds by family income and race/ethnicity, 1990

32

2.2

Average NAEP reading proficiency (scale) scores for students ages nine, thirteen, and seventeen by race/ethnicity for selected years, 1971-96

33

2.]

Racial/ethnic composition of regular districts, by district size, 1987-88 to 1990-91

34

2-4

Racial/ethnic composition of regular districts, by socioeconomic status, 1987-88 to 1990-91

35

2.5

Total full-time undergraduate enrollment by race and year

39

2.6

Enrolled full-time undergraduates compared with those of college age and those in the eligibility pool, by race and gender, 1988

40

Enrolled full-time undergraduates compared with those of college age and those in the eligibility pool, by race and gender, 1996

41

Overall full-time undergraduate enrollment by Carnegie category and year

43

Key events in the development of standardized admission tests as part of the higher education application and selection process

52

Ethnic background of ATP college-bound seniors for selected years, from 1973 to 1998, expressed as a percentage of total Student Descriptive Questionnaire respondents

57

2.7

2.8

J.I

].2

Vll

Vlll

LIST OF TABLES

Total enrollment in four-year institutions of higher education, by race/ethnicity of student, for selected years from fall 1976 to fall 1995

s8

Graduate and professional school enrollment by race/ethnicity for selected years from fall 1978 to fall 1994

59

3·5

Admission trends, I 99 5: Factors influencing admission decisions

84

4·I

Comparison of the processes driving racial conflict as proposed by three social psychological theories

108

5· I

Educational benefits of diverse college and university campuses

130

5.2

Findings from studies of practice patterns of minority physicians

r6o

J.J

3·4

FIGURES

2.1

Critical stages of schooling

28

2.2

Enrollment distribution of Carnegie classification by race, 1996

44

Scatter of points representing test scores and first-year averages around the best regression line for selected correlation values

69

3.I

s.r

Model for understanding the educational efficacy of racial diversity

133

!X

CONTRIBUTORS

is research associate of educational policy studies at the

MARYA BURKE

University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. MITCHELL J. CHANG

is assistant professor ofhigher education and

organizational change at the University of California, Los Angeles. JAMIE DAUGHERTY

is research associate of educational policy studies at the

University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. TIMoTHY K . EATMAN

is research associate of educational policy studies at

the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. KENJI HAKUTA

is Vida Jacks Professor of Education at Stanford University.

JAMES JONES

is professor of psychology at the University ofDelaware.

SHAN A LEVIN

is assistant professor of psychology at Claremont McKenna

College. JEFFREY F. MI LEM

is associate professor of education at the University of

Maryland. KATHY NoRMAN

is research associate of educational policy studies at the

University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. DAWN OWENS-NICHOLSON

is research associate of educational policy

studies at the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. WILLIAM TRENT

is professor of educational policy studies and sociology at

the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. LINDA F. WIGHTMAN

recently retired from her appointment as professor of

education at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro. DARIA WITT

was associate director of the American Educational Research

Association's Presidential Panel on Racial Dynamics in Higher Education and a research associate for the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity at Stanford University. XI

PREFACE

American higher education in recent years has become the locus of highprofile debates about race-conscious social policy. This focus is fueled by the ever-increasing stakes associated with advanced degrees, a broad public recognition of demographic changes, and a general sense that these goodswhether in public or private institutions-need to be distributed in a fair and just manner. Not far below the surface of the policy debates lies a complex tangle of ideologies, histories, and blame that often interferes with rational analysis of the issues. Despite these complexities, many social scientists and educators believe that empirical research on the significance of race in American society can make an important contribution to this highly politicized and emotionally charged arena of public policy. With these issues in mind, a project initiated by the American Educational Research Association and the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity at Stanford University was launched in the summer of 1997 to inform public policy by examining a broad array of the social science literature that addresses the intersection of race and higher education. For this project, a panel of race relations and diversity experts from across the country was convened to discuss and explore the knowledge base on race and intergroup relations in colleges and universities. The panel members include Walter Allen, James Banks (ex officio), Shirley Brice-Heath, Willis Hawley, Sylvia Hurtado, James Jones (co-chair), Yolanda T. Moses, Daryl Smith, Claude Steele, William Taylor, Ewart Thomas, William Trent, Kenji Hakuta (co-chair and principal investigator), Mitchell Chang (executive director), Daria Witt (associate director), and Clara Shin (legal analyst). Through a series of meetings that helped sharpen the focus of the proj-

Xlll

XlV

PREFACE

ect, we deliberated over the cumulative knowledge of the social sciences. In the course of our deliberations, we discovered that the research related to raceconscious social policy is substantial and consistent. Scientists like to spend much of their time scrutinizing each other's theories and methodologies, something they are trained to do very well. But when one takes several steps back from these local skirmishes and examines the entirety of the work with the benefit of distance and synthesis, considerable agreement and consensus can be found. After the panel reached this consensus, we then proceeded to consider how existing empirical findings could best inform public policy. We are not naive about the nature of public policy, but as responsible researchers, we are aware of our social obligation to state in as clear a manner as possible what we do know. Given our academic strengths, we decided to compile a research volume as a means to achieve our objectives. At the initial stages of putting this book together, the expertise of panel members was called on to determine the topics for each of the chapters and to recommend experts in the field who should be commissioned to write a chapter. Panelists then consulted with the writers on the outlines and drafts of each of the chapters. The writers presented earlier drafts at a national conference, Facing the Courts of Law and Public Opinion: Social Science Evidence on Diversity in Higher Education, held at Stanford University on May 20 and 21, 1999. There were more than 275 attendees at this conference, including Bill Lann Lee, acting assistant attorney general for civil rights, who delivered the keynote address. The conference proceedings are posted online (http://www.stanford.edu/ hakuta/racial_dynamics/Proceedings.htm), and feedback generated from the conference was used to refine the chapters. All of these collaborative efforts over the course of two years have resulted in this book. The conclusions from this work can be simply stated: • There is clear evidence of continuing inequities in educational opportunity along racial categories. • Test-based definitions of merit are incomplete. • Race is a major social psychological factor that structures American consciousness and social behaviors. • Racially diversified environments, when properly utilized, lead to quantitative as well as qualitative gains (otherwise unattainable in homogeneous environments) in educational outcomes for all parties.

PRE FACE

XV

The major policy implications deriving from these conclusions are equally clear: • Interventions that specifically address past and current effects of racial discrimination are still needed to achieve equality of opportunity for all. • University admissions must operate under an inclusive definition of merit that takes into account the relative intellectual and civic contributions an applicant will make to the university and the broader community, and that accurately addresses the detrimental effects of social and environmental factors on the test performance of members of racial and ethnic groups that continue to be targets of discrimination. • To promote widespread democratic participation and to be truly equitable, admissions and campus diversity policies should not only consider the individual but also reflect the salience and negative consequences of race in American society. • Colleges and universities that seek to realize the full benefits of diversity for all members of the university community and of the broader society must maximize and integrate all dimensions of diversity, which includes student, faculty, and administrative composition, a more inclusive curriculum, and structured and continuing dialogue across racial and ethnic lines, to name a few. We hope the research presented in this book serves to increase the sophistication with which society addresses the key issues of fairness, merit, and the benefits of diversity as they pertain to higher education. This book was prepared with funding support from the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity (CSRE) at Stanford University. We are especially grateful to James Banks, who initiated this project during his tenure as president of AERA, and Albert Camarillo, director of CSRE, who encouraged this project and provided supplemental funding. We also thank Mark Rosin for his extraordinary editorial assistance. Lastly, we thank our respective departments for making available the necessary time to complete this book. Kenji Hakuta Mitchell J. Chang Daria Witt James Jones

COMPELLING

INTEREST

Chapter One

INTRODUCTION

Daria Witt, Mitchell J. Chang, and Kenji Hakuta

Next year will mark the fiftieth anniversary of the pioneering Supreme Court decision Brown v. the Board if Education of Topeka, Kansas, which reversed Plessy v. Ferguson and made racial segregation illegal. The lawyers arguing the case for Brown used social science evidence to disprove the many commonly held beliefs about race and racism that had been used to justifY segregation. Now, nearly fifty years later, as success and prestige become increasingly associated with advanced degrees, and as the U.S. population grows more diverse, the debates surrounding the consideration of race in higher education admissions and hiring decisions are growing more contentious, and the courts oflaw and public opinion are once again struggling with issues in this area that social science evidence has the potential to address. Many questions pervade public discussions and underlie current court cases and ballot initiatives: What would a fair admissions and hiring process look like? Are standardized tests such as the SAT the best way to measure academic worth and potential? For whom are they valid and in what conditions? Who benefits from racially diverse campuses and in what ways? Should individual students all be judged by the same criteria regardless of group membership? Has the educational playing field been leveled for students of different races? Is aff1rmative action inherently discriminatory? To what extent does racism still exist? Does affirmative action compromise the quality of the student body? Will using only test scores and high school grades enable

2

COMPELLING INTEREST

universities to admit enough students of color or do universities need to use alternate criteria to admit sufficient numbers? What should the role of colleges and universities be in helping to improve race relations in this country and to diversifY future cadres ofleaders? The research literature has much to say about these pressing questions, yet it has not received sufficient public, governmental, or legal attention. This book examines the potential of existing social science evidence to inform these very complex issues and questions in the hope of engendering more informed policies and public discourse about what has mostly been an ideologically driven topic. Legal arguments for diversity and affirmative action are predicated on the notion that diversity (racial, ethnic, gender, and class) in higher education serves a compelling interest both to the institutions and to the society into which students will enter. Until recently, there was an assumption in much of higher education that the benefits of diversity are self-evident. Ample anecdotal evidence existed that convinced most educators of the validity of the claim. During the past few years, however, there have been many attacks on affirmative action and diversity programs in selective colleges and universities around the country. The passage of ballot initiatives in California and Washington state to end affirmative action, and court cases such as those against the University of Georgia, the University of Michigan, and the University of Texas law school have threatened the ability of higher education institutions to preserve the diversity of their student bodies. These challenges essentially question the judgments of educators about the best way to provide their students with a quality education. Although the judgments of educators may be disputable, an examination of existing research can help raise the level of discussion. What does empirical research have to say about the educational effects of diversity? To answer this question, we conducted an extensive review of the social science literature. The research we uncovered, which we present in the following chapters, is closely aligned with the judgn1ents of educators. In short, the evidence consistently demonstrates that a diverse student body adds value to the educational process and to institutions of higher learning when colleges and universities are committed to implementing and sustaining initiatives that promote the unique benefits that diversity provides. Despite the general public's appearing to espouse the ideals and benefits of diversity (Ford Foundation press release, September 6, 1998), people often believe that affirmative action is not the best means for achieving a racially di-

Introduction

3

verse campus and that any policy that takes race into account when apportioning opportunity inevitably harms members of racial groups who are not awarded preferences. For the most part, people acknowledge that slavery, legalized segregation, discrimination, and racism have hurt members of minority groups, particularly African Americans, in the past. A good portion of the public discourse, however, proceeds as if the Civil Rights movement brought an end to the harmful effects of policies and laws that existed for centuries and to discrimination and racism themselves. The popular belief seems to be that if they have not ended, it is time they did, but there is little that higher education can do to stamp them out completely; therefore, it is better for colleges and universities to proceed without accounting for racial differences (D'Souza 1991;Thernstrom and Thernstrom 1997). Because of such interpretations, when it comes to determining how to allocate prized positions in highly selective institutions of higher education, "fairness" and "justice" are accepted at face value and not in relation to broader social circumstances. In other words, instead of understanding affirmative action as a policy that affords opportunity to students who have demonstrated merit despite the many obstacles that have arisen largely as the result of the historical vestiges of racism, it is understood as denying opportunity to more "qualified" individuals who happen to be white. The ways in which being white has afforded privileges to many individuals and generations of their family are not acknowledged. Indeed, this view of fairness ignores the very segregated nature of our society in which the majority of racial groups continue to lead almost completely separate existences and the different opportunities that those separate existences afford or deny (Hacker 1992; Massey and Denton 1993; Schuman et al. 1997). This book takes the arguments concerning affirmative action in higher education and places them within the frame of reference that the last twenty years of social science research provides. It synthesizes the rapidly expanding, cumulative body of evidence on these issues in order to bring both contemporary and historical context into the discussions taking place in the courts and in public discourse. Although this book brings evidence to bear on what the benefits of diversity are, such evidence cannot be disentangled from the larger issues of the role of higher education, fairness and merit, and the ways in which race continues to matter in the United States. A broader consideration of the arguments can help clarify the compelling interest that diversity

4

COMPELLING INTEREST

serves to individuals, institutions, and society. Before addressing some of those larger issues, we first present an overview of the status of affirmative action in higher education.

Case Law and the Benefits

if Diversity

The legal notion of diversity as a compelling interest of an institution of higher education was defined by Justice Lewis Powell's decision in the 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. This case challenged the University of California at Davis (UC Davis) medical school's practice of reserving sixteen spots in each entering class of one hundred for African American, Latino, and Asian American students-students who, as a group, commonly experienced racial discrimination. Allan Bakke, a white applicant, sued UC Davis claiming that the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause as well as Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars racial discrimination by federally assisted institutions. Justice Powell, who supplied the pivotal vote on this decision, held that racial quotas were unconstitutional but that a university should be permitted to take into account an applicant's race as part of the admissions process. Applying the strict scrutiny standard, Powell stated that the plan was permissible if (1) its objective was compelling and (2) the racial classification was necessary to achieve the objective. Powell wrote that diversity could be achieved through a process in which all factors being equal, race could be considered as a "plus" factor. He rejected other proposed objectives, including the need to reduce the shortage of minority medical students and doctors, the need to cure the results of past discrimination by society, and the need to increase the number of doctors who will practice in currently underserved communities. Powell identified the medical school's interest in providing the educational benefits of a diverse student body as a permissible basis for the consideration of race in student admissions. Explaining this decision, Powell stated that qualified students with a background that is diverse in some way, whether it be ethnic, geographic, or economic, may bring to a professional school experiences, outlooks, and ideas that enhance the training of the student body and better equip the institution's graduates. Powell maintained that in addition to producing leaders trained through wide exposure to a robust exchange of

Introduction

5

ideas, a diverse student body encourages speculation, experimenting, and creativity that is central to the mission and quality of higher education. Although in this case Justice Powell was writing solely for himself and not the majority of a deeply divided Supreme Court, his opinion in Bakke is now regularly upheld to defend race-conscious admissions programs. The extent to which Powell's opinion represents the opinion of the Court and educational realities is now being challenged on legal, civic, and empirical grounds.

Current Status

of Minority Student Admissions

Although Bakke is still the law of the land in most of the country, the r 996 Hopwood decision in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court (affecting Texas, where the suit was filed, as well as Louisiana and Mississippi) and the passage of the ballot initiatives Proposition 209 in California and Initiative 200 in Washington have outlawed the consideration of race in higher education admissions and hiring decisions in these states. Other ballot initiatives in states such as Florida threaten to overturn Bakke as well. Without Bakke and the permissibility of considering race as a "plus factor," the numbers of non-Asian minority students at selective public institutions in those states have drastically decreased. 1 In 1998, the first year Proposition 209 was in effect in the undergraduate admissions process, there was a 66 percent decline in the number of black students and a 53 percent decline in the number ofLatino students admitted to the University of California at Berkeley, one of the flagship campuses of the University of California system. At Boalt, California's most selective public law school, when Proposition 209 went into effect in the fall of 1997, the entering class included only one African American and fourteen Latino students. 2 To counter this alarmingly small enrollment of Mrican American and Latino students, Boalt administrators implemented a number of changes and efforts in 1998. Among those efforts were reducing the importance of minute differences in grade point averages and law school board scores, abolishing the practice of granting bonus points to Ivy League applicants, encouraging students to write about their experiences with overcoming adversity (including discrimination), and granting extra consideration to qualified applicants who came from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Moreover, University of California campuses in general

6

COMPELLING INTEREST

have engaged in stronger outreach to recruit qualified minority students from around the state. Overall these efforts resulted in more than doubling the previous year's number of underrepresented minority students choosing to attend Boalt (Boalt Hall news release, August 17, 1998). 3 Nevertheless, the number of underrepresented minority students attending both Boalt and the University of California, Berkeley, as a whole is still less than 50 percent of what it was before the elimination of affirmative action. The University of California has also implemented some of the above changes at the undergraduate level. In addition, Governor Gray Davis in 1999 approved a Four Percent Plan in which the top 4 percent of each high school class would be admitted to the University of California system regardless of SAT score. Deemphasizing standardized test scores may well increase the acceptance rate of underrepresented students into the University of California system because this strategy addresses the persistent test score disparities between different racial groups. However, it is unclear whether this plan will significantly increase the enrollment of underrepresented students at both Berkeley and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), the state's public flagship institutions. The numbers and proportion of African American and Latino students on these two campuses have shrunk as a result ofProposition 209, whereas the enrollment figures for these two groups of students have increased at less selective universities in the University of California system (i.e., University of California at Riverside; see Traub 1999). Interestingly, Proposition 209 has not resulted in the absence of non-Asian minorities from the University of California system. It has, instead, seemingly produced a significantly more segregated system in which the flagship institutions are predominantly white and Asian and the least selective institutions are disproportionately black and Hispanic. If this trend continues, it will have serious implications for not only de facto racial segregation but also equal educational and postgraduate opportunities (Karabel 1999). An effective plan will need to take into account both the overall enrollment of underrepresented students in the University of California system as well as their enrollment in the two most prestigious institutions. In Texas, after the Hopwood decision, the decline in minority admissions was equally dramatic. In 1996, before the decision, there had been 266 matriculating black undergraduate students in the state's flagship university, the University of Texas at Austin. In I 997, the number had dropped to r 90. Alarmed by

Introduction

7

this precipitous drop, the Texas legislature passed a Ten Percent Plan in which the top 10 percent of students from every high school in the state would automatically qualify for admission regardless of their SAT scores. This plan did not, however, increase the number of Mrican American students to the level hoped-in 1998, only 199 African American students matriculated. By comparison, Latino student enrollment was not set back as much: in the fall of 1996, 932 Latino students enrolled, compared with 892 in 1997, and 891 in 1998 (University of Texas, Austin Office oflnstitutional Studies, November 4 1998, personal communication). More recently, the Chronicle qHigher Education (Hebelzooo) reported that debates over affirmative action at the University of Virginia, which triggered the elimination of a scoring system that gave "booster points" to black applicants, may account for the largest single-year drop in black applicants in the institution's history. The number of black students seeking undergraduate admission to the University of Virginia fell by more than 25 percent, dropping from 1,287 in 1999 to 961 in 2000. According to the Chronicle, this drop fueled more campus debates over admissions policies and the wisdom of retreating from more aggressive affirmative action practices.

The Significance

of Attending a Selective Institution

As a wide range of strategies are developed and implemented to increase the enrollment of underrepresented students in the wake of regional bans on affirmative action, a competing perspective has recently gained wider public attention. This perspective, which is typified by a recent article by James Traub (1999) in the New York Times Magazine, argues that the "end" of affirmative action is actually the "beginning of something better." In the absence of affirmative action, according to this argument, more legitimate efforts such as enhanced outreach programs will eventually bring the numbers of minority students back (almost) to their original levels. In the mean time, students who are not accepted to the most selective institutions "cascade down" to the less selective ones. The result, Traub hypothesizes, is that everyone is better off because no students are asked to do work that is over their heads and no students feel undeserving of the spots awarded them by their institutions. This rethinking of race-conscious policies appeals to popular sentiments

8

COMPELLING INTEREST

about educational access and meritocracy. Critiquing this argument, which he refers to as the new "conventional wisdom;' Jerome Karabel (1999) points out that today's situation with professional schools easily belies the notion that everyone will be accommodated somewhere so affirmative action is not necessary. For example, according to Karabel, 62 percent of those who apply to medical school each year are not accepted by a single one. Therefore, a student cannot necessarily "cascade down" to another school lower down the pecking order. As Karabel states: "if you cascade down, you cascade out," and you are prohibited from joining the future ranks of doctors. The new "conventional wisdom" also fails to acknowledge that attending a selective undergraduate institution dramatically increases minority students' chances ofboth graduating and being accepted into a graduate or professional school (Bowen and Bok 1998). The latter is especially significant at a time when advanced degrees are becoming increasingly necessary for obtaining high-ranking leadership positions in many fields. If admission to selective universities were not seen as a gateway to other golden financial and social opportunities, then race-conscious policies that grant access to that gateway would draw little fire. But clearly, attending and graduating from an elite institution afford significant tangible benefits. The groundbreaking study by two former university presidents, William Bowen and Derek Bok (1998), offers strong evidence for sizable economic advantages (in addition to other benefits) that attending a selective institution brings to students of all races. Among their many findings is that on average, relative earnings for white male graduates who in r 976 entered one of the twenty-eight selective schools in their study were 6r percent higher than were the earnings of their counterparts-that is, others who had received a B.A.-nationwide. They also found that the salaries of white female graduates of these schools who had matriculated in 1976 were on average 55 percent higher than those of their national counterparts. Graduating from a selective institution improves earning prospects for blacks even more significantly than it does for whites. The findings of Bowen and Bok's study show that black male college graduates from the twenty-eight selective institutions in their sample were found to earn an average of 82 percent more than their counterparts with B.A.'s nationwide. Similarly, black female graduates of these selective institutions earned 73 percent more than did black female college graduates nationwide. Significantly, Bowen and Bok's findings contrast sharply with the popular

Introduction

9

image of minority students who are "in over their heads" at the selective schools into which they were admitted through affirmative action. Their results show that by every measure of success (e.g., grade point average, graduate school admissions, higher earnings after college, and satisfaction with college experience), the more selective the college or university that African American students attended, the more they achieved, holding constant their initial test scores and grades. Despite this evidence, one of the most common arguments levied against affirmative action is that it is unfair to the students who are admitted when they are not "qualified" to do the work. Given the many tangible short- and long-term benefits gained from attending a selective college or university, many fear that decreased access to those institutions will not only negatively affect educational opportunities but will also exacerbate occupational, residential, and social segregation. It is important to point out that university affirmative action programs, taken together, seek to ensure universal access to higher education by striving to provide broader access for underrepresented minority groups, particularly to the most selective institutions. The majority of colleges and universities in the United States are not selective and do not need to have policies of affirmative action. 4 Indeed, given the current demands of the United States workforce for international competitiveness and solvency, the basic tensions underlying affirmative action debates do not center on whether or not higher education should be available to all those qualified and willing to participate, but on what "merits" the small number of spots available at highly selective institutions should be granted. Therefore, affirmative action litigation and much of the recent diversity literature focus on the admissions practices of four-year selective institutions of higher education that have disproportionately high numbers of white students. For these reasons, nonselective universities, community colleges, or colleges specifically targeted to underrepresented minority student populations (e.g., historically black colleges and universities) are often ignored in these discussions, even though those institutions provide fundamental insights into how higher education can best use diversity to achieve widespread educational benefits. An important objective of this book is to broaden the thinking about diversity in order to move beyond the legal controversy over affirmative action policies and the allocation of the small number of spots available at selective institutions. This interest is driven in part by our concerns about the myopic and misleading legal challenges that neglect the dynamics of race in Ameri-

10

COMPELLING INTEREST

can society. Mter careful examination of the research literature, it became clear to us that the charges against affirmative action contradict the social science evidence. As such, we are troubled by the litigation surrounding affirmative action not only because it endangers the potential for maximizing the educational benefits of diversity at institutions such as the University of Michigan and UCLA, but also because it perpetuates certain pernicious myths about the reality of racism in this country (that it has ended), about the nature of university curricula (that they are now more inclusive), about the potential for underrepresented minorities to succeed (that they are inherently inferior), and about what constitutes merit (grades and test scores only). Although the legal consequences of affirmative action litigation have a direct impact only on the selective institutions and their applicants, the underlying implications that arise from this litigation are central to related educational practices of all institutions, regardless of their degree of selectivity, and to the pursuit of civil rights in society at large. It is in this broader context, relevant to all institutions of higher education, that we wish to consider debates over affirmative action and the need for racial diversity. To broaden the discourse, in this introduction we briefly raise several pressing issues and concerns that underlie the discussions throughout this book and are addressed more substantively in other chapters.

The Role

if Higher Education

Perhaps most disturbing about the current attacks on affirmative action is that they regularly ignore the fact that the mission of virtually every college and university extends beyond the needs and rights of the individual student and institution to include as well an aspiration to improve the communities and lives of people who live beyond the university walls. Arguably, before the introduction of the GI Bill, higher education was considered a privilege bestowed only on the select few who were typically wealthy, male, and white. As societal values came to reflect civil rights interests, and as technology and other innovations have heightened the need for a highly skilled, well-educated, and highly specialized workforce, the need to diversify access to higher education has grown commensurately. At the individual level, a four-year degree grows increasingly critical in determining life opportunities. According to Donald Kennedy, former president of Stanford University, the impact of postsecondary

Introduction

I I

education on lifetime earnings grew during the 1980s to create the largest disparity in history between those with college education and those without. Higher education also has an increasing responsibility for our country's economic future. As Kennedy states, "Higher education today is challenged to fulfill a new and staggering burden. Always expected to make young people more skilled, more cultured, and more thoughtful, it now is seen as the motive power for regional economic improvement and even for international competitiveness" (Kennedy 1997, 3). If formerly underrepresented minority students now have widespread access to college education, why do we need to be concerned with bolstering diversity at elite institutions? Again, tensions surrounding the answer to this question emerge from conflicting notions of higher education, and specifically, elite higher education, as a private or a public good. Opponents of affirmative action have framed the debate in terms of the unfairness that the race-conscious admissions policy inflicts on the nonbeneficiaries of the policy, who as individuals are bereft of the prospects for higher earnings and better education they allegedly would have been granted in the policy's absence. We believe that limiting the mission of higher education to only individual interests is too narrow. The purpose of education, according to Thomas Jefferson, is not just to serve the individual participant but to foster a society of educated people who will in turn contribute to the economic and civic life of the entire community. Institutions of higher education, particularly elite institutions, have become an important medium for developing future societal leaders and for the advancement of knowledge essential to engendering economic progress and democratic participation. For these and other reasons, most colleges and universities have implemented an array of what might be loosely termed diversity initiatives (Chang 2000; Hurtado et al. 1998; Smith et al. 1997). In determining their diversity policies, both universities and the communities into which they send their students must grapple with the following questions: To what extent can students receive a meaningful education that prepares them to participate in an increasingly diverse society if the student body and faculty are not diverse? How can universities address the issues that are central to a diverse society if they do not have adequate representation of that diversity? What role should universities play in compensating students for the inequities present in our current K-12 education system (Orfield 1990, 1992;Valencia 1991;Trent 1991; U.S. Department of Education, Na-

12

COMPEI"LJNG INTEREST

tiona! Center for Education Statistics 1992)? What do selective institutions and the communities into which they send their students lose if they lack diversity? In other words, what are the implications of excluding people of color from the cohorts of those being prepared for leadership in our society? Individual answers to these questions depend in part on whether one believes that higher education should anticipate the public's needs before they arise or merely react to them after they are felt. If the former, then the "health, the progress-indeed the survival-of universities," using the words of Constantine Zurayk (1968, 22), are linked to whether institutions can anticipate and develop effective strategies for the needs of a rapidly changing society. To be sure, the role of the university has changed dramatically over the past century, reflecting the changing needs and interests of society. In contrast to the early days ofhigher education, when universities were seen more as ivory towers divorced from the everyday workings of general society, the past century has witnessed a greater reliance by government and policy makers on these institutions of higher education (Bok r 990). The growing influence of the university is particularly evident in the case of elite institutions, which are usually research institutions that have tremendous influence on society. If colleges and universities are to remain responsive and relevant to the needs of the broader society, diversity-related issues will surely take on even greater significance as our nation's population grows increasingly more diverse. The linkage between diversity and the societal relevance of the university is reflected in the following statement made by the University of Texas chancellor William H. Cunningham in reference to the decision by the University of Texas Regents to appeal the Hopwood case: "Texas will soon be a majority/minority state. The long-term social, cultural, and economic vitality of Texas is irrevocably linked to its ability to recruit and graduate minority students. While families and the public school system share the major role in the process of preparing students to enter college, institutions of higher education must recognize their responsibility to recruit and graduate Texans from all ethnic backgrounds" (University of Texas system, press release, May 13, 1998). In our own experiences as college and university professors and administrators, we have witnessed firsthand the tremendous impact that the presence of diversity in the student body, faculty, and administration has had at the institutions in which we work and in academia in general. Entirely new curricula have evolved, along with the emergence of new ways of analyzing prob-

Introduction

I

3

lems, new historical, literary, and political paradigms, innovative pedagogical approaches and areas of research, and enduring bonds with local communities, all of which have made universities more dynamic, relevant, and intellectually stimulating places to work and learn. Although one's skin color and ethnicity do not reflect a particular mindset, given the significance of race in American society, people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds are likely to bring different experiences, perspectives, interests, and analyses to a college campus. The presence of diversity in colleges and universities may also have implications for adequately preparing students for citizenship. Dennis W Brogan (1944) once observed that high schools are places where students "instruct" each other to live in America. As the next century approaches, this statement is even more applicable to American colleges and universities, which have come to be viewed as a rite of passage to adulthood and lives beyond the university walls. Judging from the empirical evidence discussed in this book and from our own observations, students who are exposed to diverse experiences, perspectives, and ways of thinking that truly reflect the multiracial and multiethnic society of the United States will be better prepared to participate meaningfully in it. College and university campuses are also ideal settings for engaging students in diversity-related issues. Traditional-age college students, for example, are relatively more open to embracing new ideas and to exposing themselves to different experiences. Consequently, college students often undergo tremendous personal growth and changes in their attitudes and perspectives during their undergraduate years (Astin 1993). Moreover, unlike K-12 schools, the relative autonomy of institutions of higher education allows these institutions to be more deliberate about engaging students, research, and educational programs. Given these unique conditions, colleges and universities have a rare opportunity to challenge students' stereotypes and to engender a willingness in students to improve their understanding of and interactions with people of other racial and ethnic groups. This opportunity should not be overlooked, because natural settings in which diverse individuals share common goals and relatively equal status are rare yet extremely important for improving racial dynamics. Given the persistent patterns of segregated housing and K-12 schooling, many college students will encounter their first substantial experience with diversity during their undergraduate years. As historian Thomas Sugrue (1999) states in his

14

COMPElLING INTEREST

deposition on behalf of the University of Michigan in the lawsuit brought against it: "There are unfortunately few places in American society where people of different backgrounds interact, learn from each other and struggle to understand their differences and discover their commonality." Residential settings on campuses, for example, present a unique but often untapped opportunity for molding intergroup relations. Unfortunately, many universities relegate their diversity initiatives to marginalized multicultural affairs offices or offices of affirmative action that are piecemeal, understaffed, and not central to the infrastructure of the university. Although diversity initiatives have begun to evolve on many campuses, diversity is still too often compartmentalized into admissions, curriculum, a few racial awareness workshops, and hiring (the addition of a small number of minority faculty and staff), each of which is considered beneficial mostly to the students who are members of groups traditionally denied access. By contrast, when diversity is viewed as central to the educational enterprise and there is a strong, integrated commitment at all levels of the institution, the research literature shows that all members of the university community benefit from the new ideas, perspectives, ways of approaching problems, teaching methods, and scholarship (Smith et al. 1997). Given these benefits, new curricular approaches that embrace diversity should not be viewed as benefiting only students of color (and implicitly harming white students by "dumbing down" the curriculum); instead, these approaches should be recognized as providing an intellectually enriching and relevant "world-class" education for all students.

Merit Another important issue in the affirmative action debate surrounds the notion of merit. In the public discourse, equity and excellence in higher education are often pitted against each other. Merit is usually narrowly, and exclusively, equated with test scores, and because the scores of blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans are as a group approximately one standard deviation below those of whites and Asians, these minority students are considered to be less deserving. Court cases such as Hopwood v. Texas and Gratz v. Bollinger have presented the score differentials between non-Asian minority students and the plaintiffs as central components of their testimony.

Introduction

I

5

Equating merit solely with test scores ignores the multifaceted dimensions of academic success. Those who have earned a college degree know quite well that this achievement requires more than just high test scores. Other individual characteristics such as perseverance, creativity, experiences outside the classroom, demonstrated commitment to different causes, resiliency, publicspeaking skills, leadership capacity, and ability to overcome challenges, to name a few, contribute to academic success. Moreover, because colleges and universities are responsible for providing their students with the best education possible, the notion of success at the institutional level can also be legitimately broadened to include an applicant's capacity to educate others and to contribute to each campus's intellectual and cultural life. Indeed, most institutions look beyond standardized test scores. What is routinely ignored in court cases that allege unfair preferential treatment toward minorities when differences in test scores are apparent is the fact that many white students with lower test scores than those of the plaintiffs were also admitted because they possess certain qualities that the university seeks (e.g., Gratz v. Bollinger). Some of these qualities might also be immutable characteristics, such as geographical diversity or legacy status; others might be a student's experience working on a farm or playing a musical instrument, or a student's athletic ability or commitment to public service. Like their opponents, supporters of affirmative action also uphold the importance of merit in determining which applicants are to be admitted. The two sides disagree, however, on what constitutes merit. Supporters argue that current definitions of merit are too narrow and still favor those with privileged upbringings and backgrounds. Thus, in the absence of broader and more accurate definitions of merit, supporters of affirmative action argue that it helps to ensure that employers and institutions of higher education look beyond their traditional applicant pools and consider all qualified applicants fairly. Providing equal access and opportunity to those who have been historically excluded from these institutions was, and continues to be, the primary goal of affirmative action. As Maphela Ramphele (1999) points out in her discussion of the need for affirmative action in South Africa, throwing all applicants into the same pool and asking them to sink or swim ignores the fact that some people have "life boats," that the swimming pool is typically constructed for certain body types, and that the standards for judging success or failure to swim are shaped by the cultural lens used to evaluate performance.

16

COMPELLING INTEREST

Taking Account of Race Critics charge not only that affirmative action practices contradict notions of merit but also that they violate the American creed widely considered the foundation of our society and culture. They argue, for example, that governmental efforts to artificially impose equal opportunity through race-conscious policies counteract the "race-neutral" spirit of the fourteenth amendment. In response, James Jones (1997) stressed that the Civil Rights movement regularly advocated race-conscious policies in an attempt to remove race as a barrier to opportunity and to minimize its negative impact. By all historical accounts, the movement was 11ot an effort to eradicate the consideration of race in public policy. This important distinction is often obscured in the media and public discussion, where the Civil Rights movement has often been misinterpreted as having advocated a color-blind society under the slogan of"equal opportunity for all," in which equality would be achieved by abandoning race. Jones argues that to implement a policy of color blindness after centuries of affirmative action for European Americans would merely "calcify the inequality of previous generations in contemporary culture" (524). Civil rights legislation could not erase the effects of the discrimination that has persisted for centuries in this country. It could also not destroy prejudices that existed, and continue to exist, in people's minds and hearts. The paradox inherent in facilitating equal treatment of individuals by recognizing persistent biases against groups is encapsulated by a famous statement by President Lyndon B. Johnson during a 1965 speech at Howard University in which he justified the need for affirmative action: You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire .... You do not take a person, who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race and then say, you are free to compete with all the others, and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. (Quoted from Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights 1984, 27) Given that egregious race-conscious practices originally created disparities in access and opportunities for racial minorities in this country, alternative policies that only use proxies-such as class-for race will not be nearly as effective in remedying these disparities. The research presented in the following chapters shows that different racial groups experience race with varying

Introduction

I

7

degrees of immediacy, meaning, and importance and that to disregard race and pursue a color-blind approach is to ignore contemporary realities. The disparity in access and opportunity between whites and blacks exists across all class levels. There is a substantial body of evidence, particularly in the desegregation literature, showing that disadvantages suffered by the poor are tremendously exacerbated by race. Although it is true that many white people are poor, it is almost exclusively Hispanics and African Americans who live in concentrated poverty (Massey and Denton 1993). The urban ghettos into which most low-income Hispanics and blacks are isolated present fewer opportunities for educational and economic opportunity than the more economically integrated neighborhoods in which low-income whites tend to live (Wilson 1987). This type of evidence refutes the assumption that all lowincome children, regardless of race, are equally disadvantaged-one of the major premises underlying arguments for replacing the use of race with class as a plus factor in admissions decisions. Instead, the evidence supports the contention that race cuts across class barriers and that discrimination is a powerful force that money does not easily overcome. The centuries of racism in this country have left a powerful legacy that permeates all levels of American life and that cannot, and should not, be ignored. Social science evidence belies the idealistic perception of the postCivil Rights era that Americans are able to judge people solely on the basis of character. More likely, we live our whole lives operating within the societal constraints of our gender, class, and race (Jones r 997). To accurately assess the efficacy of affirmative action, we must understand the true effects of racism on all sectors of society. This legacy cannot be clarified or dismantled by superficial discussions and media sound bites. Thus, this book documents how group membership characteristics play a defining role in determining the experiences and access to opportunities for an individual. Although we uncovered a great deal of relevant research, it became clear to us that there is still an urgent need for more focused study of what policies and efforts are necessary to eradicate the effects of discrimination and to create truly equal opportunity. There must be broader commitment to this sort of study in order both to understand better the significance of racism's legacy and to establish effective and sustainable remedies. We believe that higher education, in which there is a tradition of focused dialogue, debate, and research, is the ideal setting for initiating and sustaining work in this area.

IS

COMPELLING INTEREST

Although affirmative action litigation centers on admissions policies at selective schools, the impact of the litigation and the ensuing public debate are more far-reaching, as are the effects of the tendency to ignore the connection between race and opportunity and to downplay arguments of justice for past and present discrimination. The current sound bites that surface from the debates, for example, seem to have effectively persuaded the public that race and group membership are irrelevant, that racism has ended, and that individual rights should prevail over group rights. These contentions, which drive much of the public discourse on this topic, jeopardize much more than the admission of individual minority students to selective institutions. Consequently, we address in this book specific attacks on affirmative action and also the broad meaning of the absence of diversity in higher education for the public consciousness, for notions of equity, and for the meaningful education of people of all races and ages.

Synopsis This book addresses the three major parts of the diversity debate: fairness, merit, and the benefits of diversity. I. Fairness. Affirmative action policies are often criticized as being unfair because they give advantages to individuals on the basis of group membership. Fairness arguments are examined in this book through both empirical and theoretical evidence of persisting inequalities in opportunity and access for different racial groups. In an effort to dispel the common notion that only color blindness will achieve true equality, chapters also look at the extent to which racism in various forms is still prevalent among individuals and institutions in the United States, and at how race-conscious policies address racial disparities more effectively than do race-neutral ones.

2. Merit. To enhance our discussion of fairness, we explore the need for a broader definition of merit that moves beyond using only test scores and grades as indicators of a student's capacity for academic success.

3. Bemifits. This book pulls together tangible, empirical evidence on the benefits that diversity (in all its multiple forms and dimensions) brings to the individual, the institution, and the broader society.

Introduction

I

9

Common Misconceptions Addressed There are four commonly accepted misconceptions about the dynamics of race in higher education and in the broader society that create powerful attitudinal barriers to embracing the benefits and fairness arguments of the diversity debate, and that prevent acceptance of a more inclusive and accurate definition of merit. Despite their lack of substantiation, these popular misconceptions have formed the basis for policies that address racial dynamics in the universities and in the broader society. The topics for each of the chapters were chosen and developed with these misconceptions in mind. Misconception 1: Past inequalities in access and opportunity that racial and ethnic minority groups have suffered have been sufficiently addressed and no longer require attention. William Trent and his associates, in their chapter titled "Justice, Equality of Educational Opportunity, and Mfirmative Action in Higher Education," examine the trends in participation in higher education by race and sector in enrollment, segregation, and earned degree patterns for 1980-96. To place these participation trends into context, Trent also examines particular features of the early stages of the educational pipeline from K- I 2 that have been shown to influence educational attainment. Trent reveals the tremendous disparity in the quality of the early pipeline experiences provided to students of different races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic status. These data point to the fact that until the educational playing field has been leveled, ignoring race-or developing a "color-blind" approach-disregards reality. Miscotiception 2: Merit can be defined by test scores. Linda F. Wightman, in her chapter titled "Standardized Testing and Equal Access: A Tutorial," looks at the history of standardized test use and the evolution of tests as the principal screening device in determining admission to higher education. Arguments against affirmative action and other race-conscious policies that are intended to diversifY university campuses are predicated on the common public notion that there are ways of measuring merit that are fairly precise and scientific, and that departure from using these tests inevitably results in unfair discrimination against someone who is more deserving. Evidence presented in this book shows that although useful, tests are far from infallible and comprehensive measures of merit, yet test scores are regularly used for measurement purposes beyond those for which they have been designed. Although these tests are statistically sound to perform a specific function, policies based on such a narrow

20

COMPELLING INTEREST

defmition of merit inevitably exclude meritorious students whose qualifications are not consonant with this definition. Wightman concludes that universities should look beyond students' test scores and grades as indicators of their capacity for academic success and include in their definitions of merit the broader qualities of leadership, perseverance, and citizenship. Misconception 3: Fairness is best achieved through race-neutral policy. The chapter by Shana Levin, "Social Psychological Evidence on Race and Racism," reviews the theoretical and empirical evidence from the field of social psychology to examine two central questions: (r) Does race matter in everyday life? and (2) Should race matter in institutional policies? Levin presents evidence showing that although blatant forms of racism are comparatively rare, many persons still demonstrate unconscious biases toward members of minority groups, and that these biases influence social perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors with deleterious effects on the opportunities afforded many students of color. Because unintentional racial biases persist, policies of" color blindness" perpetuate the status quo. Examining various theories of fairness, Levin concludes that using the same standards to judge individuals from majority and minority groups is unfair because differences in power in society prevent the different groups from having equal opportunity. Therefore, both individual and group characteristics need to be considered in selection and evaluation procedures. Misconception 4: Diversity programs benefit only students of color. The chapter by Jeffrey E Milem, "The Educational Benefits of Diversity: Evidence from Multiple Sectors," addresses the question put forth by Justice Powell in the Bakke decision-whether a race-conscious policy serves a "compelling interest." Using a multidisciplinary analysis, Milem synthesizes evidence on how diversity benefits the individual, the institution, and society. Contrary to the popular perception that diversity programs benefit only students of color, social science evidence consistently points to the tremendous benefits that diversity in higher education brings to all students, to the institutions, and to society. Among the many benefits that diverse campuses bring are growth in higher-order thinking skills, increased motivation, improved retention, less racial stereotyping, higher earning potential, and greater likelihood of living, working, and socializing comfortably in integrated settings throughout a student's adult life. On the basis of available evidence, Milem concludes that diversity does not lower standards (as opponents of affirmative action often contend); indeed, it raises them by helping to create an environment that is more

Introduction

2I

intellectually engaging because it includes a broader range of perspectives, experiences, and backgrounds.

Conclusion After examining the knowledge base on racial dynamics in higher education, we realized that the research evidence has substantive policy implications and widespread educational usefulness, yet such linkages have not yet reached a broader audience. Part of our purpose in offering this book is to make these linkages explicit. However, we are not just documenting the state of current research in this area. We also seek to make a compelling argument for why institutions of higher learning need to focus on issues of racial dynamics, to establish a blueprint for research on what we still need to know, and to suggest strategies and practices for institutions to realize the educational benefits that diversity presents. Our conclusions in support of affirmative action were arrived at from a rigorous systematic examination of the research as well as from our experience as educators. As we analyzed and assembled the broad spectrum of research presented in this hook, we were particularly troubled by public discourse about diversity and racial dynamics, which for the most part has been based on views unsubstantiated by empirical evidence. The chapters that follow demonstrate how empirical evidence creates a very different view of racial dynamics in this country than that shaped by popular misconceptions. Although the evidence in this area is still emerging, there are many lessons to be learned from social science research that have powerful, immediate implications for diversity-related policies in higher education. The research shows, for example, that to bring about the benefits that a diverse student body potentially offers, institutional efforts must extend beyond admissions policies. Diversity must be conceptualized broadly to encompass any aspect of the institution that affects education or campus life. In short, all levels of the university must undergo a meaningful and substantive transformation (Chang Hurtado et al. 1998). When this happens, the evidence reviewed in this book indicates that the benefits associated with diversity do not only have a high rate of return, but are necessary for creating truly equal opportunity and 2000;

for effectively educating students to live in the twenty-first century.

Chapter 7iPo

JUSTICE,

EQUALITY

OPPORTUNITY, ACTION

IN

OF AND

EDUCATIONAL AFFIRMATIVE

HIGHER

EDUCATION

William Trent, Dawn Owens-Nicholson, Timothy K. Eatman, Marya Burke, Jamie Daugherty, and Kathy Norman

Attaining the complementary goals of social justice and equality of educational opportunity has always required strong affirmative efforts. This is especially the case in higher education. This chapter examines the evidence of our nation's progress in pursuit of those goals. We begin by examining features of the early stages of the educational experience that have been shown to influence college access. Specifically, we present data on early-childhood education, children at risk, the changing demographics of the schools, average reading proficiency, racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status composition of school districts by district size, and tracking and ability grouping. We then present data on the patterns and trends in participation in higher education by race and sector-using the Carnegie classification-for the period 1980-96. 1 We report enrollment and segregation patterns for selected years during this period, and we address several questions. First, what are the patterns-levels, trends, contrasts-of participation in higher education by race and sector? We examine this question with respect to enrollment at the undergraduate level, with mention of earned degrees. Second, what is the approximate amount of diversity that characterizes undergraduate education? To investigate this question, we measured the level of segregation within four sectors of higher education. The overall intent of our analyses is to understand better relative participation levels and differences in and across various sectors by race. The use of 22

Justice, Equality, and Affirmative Action in Higher Education

23

race as a factor in admissions obviously affects members of each minority group, including African Americans, Latino las, Native Americans, and Asian Americans. Although we address important differences, our principle focus is on African Americans because the history oflegalized discrimination against this group has resulted in barriers that distinguish them in important ways.

Setting the Context The current opposition to the use of race in higher education admissions decisions in order to implement campus programs designed to address underrepresentation or achieve a more diverse university community stands in sharp contrast to Justice Harry Blackmun's admonition (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265, 1978) that "in order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way." More recent decisions as seen in Hopwood v. Texas (78 E3d 932, 5th Cir. 1996) and T#ssman v. Boston School Committee (996 E Supp. 120, U.S. Dist. 1998), along with the constitutional provisions of Proposition 209 in California and Initiative 200 in Washington, reflect the ascendancy of a policy perspective that would severely limit the role of race in public policy and especially in educational policy and practice. In higher education, the spread of this more limiting public policy perspective threatens to dismantle more than a quarter century of targeted assistance to groups historically denied full participation and access largely on the basis of race. It is tragic irony that the Civil Rights movement that sought to help us get beyond race is now challenged by the potential of not being able to take account of race. Critics of affirmative action are even citing the fervent words of Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech that "one day men will be judged by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin" in their efforts to limit the use of race in constructing remedy and redress. The moral appeal of this color-blind conception underestimates the pervasiveness of the cumulative effects oflegal and customary discrimination, especially against blacks, and threatens to dismantle substantial progress realized during the post-Brown era. Many of the proponents of affirmative action have been concerned to show the harmful consequences of the impact of Hopwood and Proposition 209, providing detailed examinations of declines in minority applications and

24

C 0 M P ELLI N G I N T EREST

enrollment and estimates of the actual difference that race makes at selective institutions either at the undergraduate level (Kane 1998) or in admission to law school (Wightman 1998b). Most recently, Bowen and Bok (1998) have provided a major analysis of the matriculation of blacks at highly selective colleges and universities that shows important benefits of affirmative action admissions policies. In each of the above analyses, the authors have focused considerable attention on the admissions process and the importance of the use of race to offset the lower test scores of African Americans and Latina/a applicants. Each study demonstrates the centrality of using race as a factor in securing the admission of these students to selective colleges and universities. Much of the current debate, however, proceeds without careful reflection on the very brief thirty-seven-year period during which we have been seriously pursuing greater participation in higher education for minorities under any policy model. The current higher education context is obviously different in multiple and complex ways from the 1965 context, when the higher education act of that year was passed. In that initial authorizing legislation, major initiatives, especially those most closely identified with access to and participation in higher education, were set forth. The Trio programs-Upward Bound Talent Search, Special Services, and the Basic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOG, now PELL grants) all came to fruition during the 1965-69 period. Each of these programs had as a core part of its origin a fundamental understanding that race and poverty were critical factors to be taken into account when increasing access to higher education. Evidence of the condition of black participation in higher education at that time is illustrated in the 1971 Newman Report on Higher Education (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 1971). The report shows that from 1964 to 1968, black enrollment in colleges and universities increased 85 percent, from 234,000 to 435,000. As a percentage of total enrollment, the change represented a growth of r ·4 percent in black enrollment, from 5 percent to 6-4 percent. This 1971 report, sponsored by then Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Elliott Richardson, labeled the progress in this area "the unfinished experiment in minority education" (44). It is important to note that discussions about race in this period were discussions largely about blacks and whites. The experiment that Richardson referenced were those efforts of traditionally white colleges and universities to increase the presence of black students on their campuses. The success of these efforts was researched by Crossland (1971), who reported that by 1970,

Justice, Equality, and AJfirmativc Action in Higher Education

25

nearly two-thirds of all black students were enrolled in other than traditionally black colleges and universities, whereas in 1964 more than half were enrolled in traditionally black colleges and universities. The dominant public policy understanding of affirmative action in the mid-1960s was one of support, which grew in part out of the leadership of then President Lyndon B. Johnson. 2 In 1967, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11375, which included gender along with race as an illegitimate basis of discrimination. In 1967 this order was perceived as a necessary way of preventing harm to the legitimate educational aspirations of blacks and women. Ironically, the same language of the Civil Rights movement, as noted earlier, is now used by critics of affirmative action to dismantle the programs that emerged in response to overcoming barriers. In some ways the precursor of the public policy opposition to an affirmative use of race today may well have been the "benign neglect" statement of the Nixon presidency. 3 Certainly Bakke, Vfteber, Hopwood (see Appendix A for a description of each case), and the state constitutional amendments in California and Washington are the crystallization of a fundamental disagreement with the prevailing views of the past forty years. Whereas race has traditionally been viewed as a legitimate basis for redress, even under de facto circumstances, it has now come to be painted with the brush of the "victimization hypothesis." This hypothesis argues that "racial minorities" use their racial status to make illegitimate claims on scarce resources and opportunities. Of course many vital aspects of the context have changed since the Johnson era. One of the arguments that emerged from these changes is that we have managed to transcend race in most ways and that poverty or class is the main cause of inequality. 4 For example, when it was first published in 1978, William Julius Wilson's The Declining Significance if Race was widely cited by members of the social science and public policy communities as empirical evidence for the view that race is no longer the principal factor shaping inequality. Although the importance of class should not be understated, much empirical evidence continues to support the significance of race. Fordham and Ogbu's (1986) ethnographic work about urban black schools, for example, highlighted an oppositional attitude among students who were said to associate academic excellence with "acting white;' which has been received as evidence ofhow race shapes academic achievement for the"underclass."Wilson himself emphasized class along with race in his subsequent book, The Truly Disadvantaged (1987).

26

C 0 M P ELLI N G I N T EREST

The demographic transformation under way in the United States has complicated civil rights issues . .fu we have already observed, the debate about race in higher education in the United States has largely been a black-white discussion. That framework, although still providing a central focus for the discussion of race, is no longer sufficient. On the one hand, the diversity of the U.S. population makes it necessary that we recognize common barriers to full participation for all minority citizens. On the other hand, recent demographic shifts, as well as past patterns of access and opportunity, which varied from minority group to minority group, necessitate that we also recognize differentiated barriers to full participation. For example, there are critical reasons that the situation of blacks is very different from those of other communities of color. The legacy and stigma of slavery and Jim Crow laws as they impact African Americans stand in stark contrast to the "model minority" inuge (Nakanishi 1989; Chan and Wang 1991) of&ian/Pacific Americans. In addition, although the distinction is often made in higher education between those colleges and universities in the South, where segregation was legally enforced, and those outside the South, where the focus is now on achieving parity, examination of the long-term record of black participation in higher education in the United States shows that, simply put, the vast majority of all schools of higher education could be described as having denied access to blacks (Ballard 1973; Cobb 1998). In effect, custom was virtually as powerful as law. The plight of Native Americans is different still, given the history of U.S. management of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian education. The diversity within both the Hispanic and Asian categories, along with the language issues associated with each, further complicates any discussion of an effective "common" response to the removal of barriers to full and equitable participation in higher education. Economic factors are also central to the current debate. Some analysts have pointed to the earlier era of civil rights legislation as one in which heightened expectations and a sense of widespread prosperity formed the basis for a more generous consensus about social policies emphasizing access and opportunity. It is safe to say that some of these arguments were offered before the upturn in the U.S. economy of the late 1990s. It seems clear now that economic prosperity in and of itself is not sufficient to sustain public policies that foster access and opportunity. At the same time, it also appears that a sense of heightened expectations for unlimited opportunity and growth is

Justice, Equality, and Affirmative Action in Higher Education

27

necessary for public support of the traditional afftrmative strategies. The current press of global competition for available work appears to encourage a zero-sum-game orientation to opportunity. Under this framework, the public is less generous, fearing a reduction of choice as well as a limitation of the chances for success for their children and themselves. Today, there is also far more intense competition for the public dollar. Health care for the elderly, health care for the young and indigent, increased incarceration under a get-tough mentality, and a broad array of infrastructure repair costs compete with education for support. The programmatic interventions of the past thirty-seven years, which employ an affirmative use of race, are competing for funding with a set of issues that have very strong advocates. By contrast, education, especially higher education, continues to be viewed as a privilege, and there has been a substantial shift to a public sentiment that says those who benefit most have to be willing to cover more, if not all, of the costs. In addition, those who are assisted must merit any assistance that is provided. Hence the growth in loan assistance as the principle form of government financial assistance to students in higher education and the growing reliance on tests scores in the admissions process to determine merit. Merit per se is not being challenged by supporters of affirmative action; rather, what is being challenged, as discussed in Chapter 3 of this book, is a narrowing definition of merit that relies too heavily or nearly entirely on test scores. For those colleges and universities where selection of a student body is the challenge, the pressure to make admissions more objective usually increases the reliance on tests. 5 Public universities feel this pressure most intensely. The above attributes of the current context make it more important that we take stock of progress-and the lack thereof-in the expansion of participation in higher education for different racial groups in the United States. Before addressing questions about the patterns of participation in higher education, it is important to look first at what research tells us about how race influences the early years of education in America.

Patterns, Trends, and Contrasts of Educational Opportunities Perhaps one of the most enduring metaphors in all of education is that of the educational pipeline. It seems intended to evoke an image of the passage of

28

C 0 M PEL LIN G I NT E RE S T

State and national assessments

1 Differential access and participation by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status F 1G u R E 2. t

Algebra gateway courses

1~ Race, class, and gender differentiation

Tracking and ability grouping

~1 Dropouts Suspension Expulsion

Critical Stages of Schooling

students from school entry to school exit as a "flow" along what might naively be seen as a relatively straight or predictably curving pipe. The difficulty with the metaphor occurs when we try to account for the numbers of students who exit the pipeline in inappropriate places and at inappropriate times. For the most part we tend to view the pipeline as largely intact and accommodating the relatively smooth and uninterrupted flow of the majority of students from school entry to school completion. Leakage in the pipeline or inappropriate early exits have mainly been explained as individual failure. Several scholars have challenged this prevailing view by suggesting that we might reject the pipeline metaphor in favor of one that is more consistent with the experiences of black, Latino/a, Native American, and many poor children. Michael Olivas (1986) reasons that thinking of a stream or a river would be

Justice, Equality, and Affirmative Action in H igher Education Enrollment by institutional selectivity and sector

Major field choice

Race, class, and gender differentiation

Access Entry Support

29

more appropriate, because there would be a greater possibility of addressing the occurrence ofblockages in the river or stream, which could slow or divert the flow and/ or redirect it. This alternate imagery seems especially fitting for many students of color because their participation in higher education is often fraught with barriers that obstruct their educational progress. This section seeks to report on both the success and deficiencies in the pursuit of equal educational access and opportunity for minorities by describing the participation of students of color in higher education since 1980, examining both enrollment and degree attainment patterns. Figure 2 . r presents one illustration of how we might envision critical stages of the pre-K through graduate and professional school educational structure. At the bottom of the figure, we have indicated selected limiting conditions and practices that shape the relative presence of different populations of students at various points in this structure. The discussion of specific limiting factors follows.

30

COMPELLING INTEREST

The Early Stages There is a broad-based consensus regarding the critical roles that the early years of childhood and schooling play in shaping long-term educational achievements. At the same time, a growing number of researchers point to family background, and, in particular, family structure, to account for poor school performance and low levels of achievement in African American and Hispanic communities. Coleman (1964) and others provided the initial empirical evidence for this latter argument when the Equality of Educational Opportunity Survey failed to confirm the conventional wisdom that school-to-school differences in quality of educational resources were the primary cause of differences in educational attainment between rich and poor, and minority and white communities. This debate about family background and structure versus discriminatory practices in K-12 schooling fuels a tension over policy choices that are too often discussed in "either/or" terms rather than "both/and." The perspective employed in this discussion centers on "opportunity to learn" and examines factors that shape such opportunities. Clearly, family resources, including parental education and family stability, are important opportunity-to-learn conditioners. In this section we briefly discuss particular features of the early stages of the educational pipeline that have been shown to influence educational attainment. This discussion necessarily precedes the discussion of higher education patterns and trends because the early stages have enormous implications for college access. Specifically, we present data on early-childhood education, children at risk, the changing demographics of the schools, average reading proficiency, racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status composition of school districts by district size, and tracking and ability grouping. We begin by first discussing the demographic realities of the nation's public elementary and secondary schools. Hodgkinson (1985) described the demographic imperative, the forces of population growth and change that yield our school population, and its implication for education. As minorities have become an increasingly large part of the nation's population, there has been an even greater rate of change in the school population. More importantly, the demographic shifts have been such that the schools have gotten greater numbers of students for whom school has not been a successful experience. There are greater numbers of economically disadvantaged students, greater

Justice, Equality, and Affirmative Action in Higher Education

3I

numbers of students for whom English is a second language, and greater numbers of students from single-parent households. For example, during the period 1976-95, there was an I I percent increase in minority students (U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights 1976, 1984, 1988, and 1990; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 1992, 1995, 1996, and 1997). The percentage of Hispanic students has more than doubled, from 6.4 percent to 13.5 percent. The percentage of Asian/Pacific Island students increased from 1.25 percent to 3. 7 percent. These data highlight racial and ethnic differences in opportunity to learn and in educational performance.

Early Intervention Research results underscoring the need for intervention as early as the age of three years and the benefits of preschool, especially for minority and poor youngsters, have alerted the policy community to the need to redouble efforts focused on the early years (Campbell and Ramey 1994; Schweinhart, Barnes, and Weikart 1993). School readiness and the beginning of the schooling experience are greatly influenced by the early training and exposure that families and communities can provide. Early intervention provides a mechanism for counteracting the limitations of economically disadvantaged communities and helping students have a more equal starting point. Such opportunities are not evenly distributed across racial and income categories. Table 2. r shows the prekindergarten participation rates of three- to four-year-olds by family income and race/ethnicity. The data in Table 2.1 are from the 1990 census, and they show that generally, irrespective of race, participation in prekindergarten is greater for those families with higher incomes. Race, however, influences early intervention. Hispanic participation rates are consistently lower than are those of other groups at each income level. White and Asian participation rates are highest among the high-income groups. One of the key policy strategies for improving the number of students of all racial/ethnic categories who perform better early on in school is overcoming the financial constraints that limit early participation. Research by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) shows that the gap in minority-white scores at age seventeen is

32

COMPELLING INTEREST TABLE 2.1

Prekindergarten Participation Rates t?f Three- to Four- Year-Olds by Family Income and Race/Ethnicity, 1990

Family Income $100,000 or more $75,000-$99,999 $50,000-$74,999 $35,000-$49,999 $25,000-$34,999 $15,000-$24,999 $10,000-$14,999 $5,000-$9,999 Less than $5,000 SOURCE:

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/ Pacific Islander

59.7 50.9 44.5 35.8 28.5 23.4 22.3 23.4 22.6

49.7 45.9 42.5 36.2 32.6 29.0 27.8 26.8 24.1

43.6 34.9 28.6 23.8 19.5 17.0 16.7 17.5 16.9

53.0 44.8 40.2 33.5 26.6 22.5 22.1 22.1 21.8

U.S. Bureau of the Census

American Indian I Alaskan Native 51.2 37.2 35.8 29.5 29.0 26.5 28.9 28.3 25.0

1990.

about the size of the gap at age nine. Early intervention may substantially reduce the size of the early gap and thereby preserve later school opportunity and performance. A number of factors conspire to place students at risk of educational failure. Among these are poverty, living in a single-female-headed household, residing in an urban area, and attending an urban school. The likelihood of experiencing each of these risks differs significantly by race. For example, in 1990, nearly half-44 percent-of the children identified as "at risk" were Mrican American. By contrast, only one percent were Asian. Roughly the same percentage of children at risk were Latino/a (26 percent) and white (27 percent). Students at risk are more likely to drop out of school and more likely to experience poor academic performance. Each of these outcomes dramatically reduces the numbers available for graduation and college enrollment. One indicator oflow academic performance is reading proficiency. Table 2.2 presents the average NAEP reading proficiency scores for students ages nine, thirteen, and seventeen by race and ethnicity for selected years from 1971 to 1996. Black and Hispanic average reading proficiency scores are substantially below those of whites at each age and for each year. The gap, however, has narrowed slightly between blacks and whites and between Hispanics and whites during this twenty-five-year period.

Justice, Equality, and Affirmative Action in Higher Education

33

TABLE 2.2

Average NAEP Reading Proficiency (Scale) Scores for Students Ages Nine, Thirteen, and Seventeen by Race!Ethnicity for Selected Years, 1971-96 White Year

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Black

Age 9 Age 13 Age 17 214 217 221 218 218 217 218 218 220

261 262 264 263 261 262 266 265 267

291 293 293 295 295 297 297 296 294

Hispanic

Age 9 Age 13 Age 17 Age 9 Age 13 Age 17 170 181 189 186 189 182 185 185 190

222 226 233 236 243 242 238 234 236

239 241 243 264 247 267 261 266 265

183 190 187 194 189 192 186 194

232 237 240 240 238 239 235 240

252 261 268 271 275 271 263 265

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 1997b. The key for interpreting scores is as follows: 150, simple, discrete reading tasks, generalizations; 200, partial skills and understanding materials; 250, interrelates ideas and makes; 300, understands complicated information; and 350, learns from specialized reading. SOURCE: NOTE:

Racial and Poverty Compositio11

if Schools

Student performance in schools is shaped by a variety of factors that tend to undermine the performance of minorities. Research has shown that the concentration ofAfrican American and Latino fa students in schools and the concentration of poverty in schools are highly correlated-they tend to occur together. The schools in which these two factors occur together are typically in large, urban districts. They are almost always more poorly resourced as measured by pupil-teacher ratios, teachers with advanced credentials, more experienced teachers, or an enriched curricula. Massey and Denton (199 3), in their examination of racial segregation, describe the phenomenon of hypersegregation, whereby race, ethnicity, and income converge to produce high levels of persistent segregation. The authors show that hyper-segregation has enormous implications for educational outcomes. In their simulations, Massey and Denton manipulated average school test scores by varying the levels of racial and poverty concentration. In general, they found that the greater the intensity of racial and income segregation, the lower the average test scores. Table 2. 3 shows the racial/ethnic composition of regular school districts by

34

COMPELLING INTEREST TAIJLE 2.3

Racial/Ethnic Composition rif Regular Districts, by District Size, 1987-88 to 1990-91 Native American

Asian

Hispanic

Black

White

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

39,963,281 40,120,672 40,408,326 40,911,261

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3

10.2 10.7 11.2 11.6

16.5 16.4 16.3 16.2

69.3 68.8 68.4 67.9

By Size 0-999 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91

2,975,906 2,975,605 2,927,104 2,917,080

2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0

0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8

5.4 5.4 5.5 5.5

3.7 3.8 3.5 3.3

87.2 87.0 87.3 87.5

1,000-4,999 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91

12,539,341 12,513,543 12,544,546 12,523,715

1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5

5.2 5.5 5.7 5.8

9.3 9.4 9.3 9.1

82.9 82.6 82.4 82.4

5,000-9,999 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91

6,533,712 6,433,060 6,422,276 6,477,862

0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8

2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0

7.9 8.2 8.8 9.2

12.8 12.9 12.7 12.8

75.9 75.6 75.0 74.3

10,000 and over 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91

17,914,312 18,199,464 18,514,400 18,992,604

0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7

4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0

15.4 16.0 16.6 17.2

25.0 24.6 24.3 24.0

54.3 54.0 53.5 53.2

No. of Students

Years

Overall 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91

SOURCE:

to

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics

1990-91.

NOTE:

Percentages may not add to roo percent as a result of rounding.

1986-87

Justice, Equality, and Affirmative Action in Higher Education

35

TAHLE 2.4

Racial/Ethnic Composition

~f Regular

(%~Population in

Years

Overall 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91

Districts, by Socioeconomic Status Poverty), 1987-88 to 1990-91

No. of Students

Native American (%)

Asian (%)

Hispanic (%)

Black (%)

White (%)

39,963,281 40,120,672 40,408,326 40,911,261

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3

10.2 10.7 11.2 11.6

16.5 16.4 16.3 16.2

69.3 68.8 68.4 67.9

Children in Poverty

By % of School-Age